Nichael Lynn wrote:
>Rather, History has shown --all breast-beating aside-- that the legend
of
>the lone genius who suffers endless years of supression at the hands
of the
>entrenced "guild" only to emerge victorious and to be shown to have
been
>"right all along" is virtually always exactly that: a fairy tale.
Everybody (well, almost) will agree: for every lone "scientific" that
pretends to hold a revolutionary new discovering and who is apart from
the scientific community, there are a hundred or more opportunists,
lunatics or say-what-you-wish that play that role, but:
a) the case exists, and it's not so infrequent in Humanities: think
in Tesni'ere's work or Frege's logic, or the time of the true
recognition of Saussure's theories, etc. The sad fact is that the usual
ending is not the victorious showing-up, but posthumous recognition.
b) This is not the case here since O'Callaghan fits not the figure: I
mean, I don't think he has being ostracised from academia.
c) Classical philology is (or at least I have always been foolishly
proud to think so) one of the most open fields of scientific knowledge,
in the sense that no one is required to show his credentials before
adducing the argument. At least I used to think that a sound reasoning
is heard by the scientific community without consideration of the
individual background (OK: it is not exactly so: but it is so in far
more cases that any other speciality I know about).
God (via Jim West) wrote:
>As the voice of God
>said to Augustine, "tolle, lege"; so I say to those interested in
7Q5-
>"tolle, lege" Stanton's book!!!!
I should think that, as Bavinck wrote, an outline, or at least
anything that falls nearer the prove than the insult could have been a
good idea. Now that nothing less that the voice of God and the ire of
the listowners has been invoked, let's put an end to the dispute. First
thing I'll do Monday after work hours is look for Stanton's book, and
see the evidence he adduces. I have my mind open to any reasoning and
clear evidence, but somehow I feel I would prefer to think I am not
going to find in that book the following epitheta, all taken from
previous letters about O'Callaghan's hypothesis.
right,left,outa theory that simply will not
wash
the whole nonsense
This is absolutely false
There is NO, I repeat, NO Dead Sea Scrolls expert who support the
notion that NT documents have been found among the scrolls
these suggestions are simply tortured
This procedure is bogus, foolish, and could only be accepted by persons
who simply do not know anything about texts or readings
Thiede is hardly a big gun in Scrolls studies. This is simply an effort
to bolster a silly theory by the flashing of some so called "big
name".
only those who have huge presuppositions about the composition and
dating of the NT could hold such impossible views
such rubbish.
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es